Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

The headline is provocative, but I believe fair. The author writes that “instead of making the case for socialism, [radicals] made the case against capitalism. I have tried to do something different” (p.29). In reality, the author uses one chapter to imagine what a socialist society would be like in the future. The rest of the book is the history of socialism up to modern times. Instead of offering reasons why this story can become reality, he expects readers to be convinced that his fictional account is economically sustainable. This includes mandating that workers control the firms’ decisions, state ownership of companies that are then rented to workers with good proposals (like shark tank), guaranteed government jobs, and a basic income grant. There is virtually zero economic arguments as to why such a program would be sustainable. I will mention here that even many libertarians are in favor of a basic income. People who value freedom recognize that having one’s basic needs taken care of means people are not compelled to work in noxious conditions. This policy would provide the most important aspect of socialism (freedom and dignity) with a minimal chance of unintended consequences. “At its core, to be a socialist is to assert the moral worth of every person” (p.26). With this rebranding, we’re all either socialists or sociopaths. He argues that the ever-increasing welfare state is insufficient because “the social-democratic compromise is inherently unstable” (p. 221). He then has faith that workers rising up to control firms and raising taxes to provide everyone with basic needs puts us on sturdy ground. For anyone not already a socialist, this is unconvincing. “The socialist argues that wage labor is in fact an unacceptable form of exploitation” (p. 28). A note on ‘exploitation’: When Marx uses the term it does not mean treating someone unfairly, but instead means the capitalist receives some of the worker’s production in return for taking market risk and providing the worker with the opportunity and equipment. Many would argue that is entirely fair, and that using ‘exploitation’ is such a way is misleading. If the author was willing to promote freedom and moral worth through a basic income supported by a competitive market economy then all would be well. Instead he takes the ideological step towards socialism without any evidence of sustainability, and in doing so likely undermines the very source of prosperity that he takes for granted.